How Trump won, and why Clinton lost.

April 14, 2017

Want to Fight Back?

Sign up for Take Action Now and get three actions in your inbox every Tuesday.

Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue.

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Support Progressive Journalism

The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.

Fight Back!

Sign up for Take Action Now and we’ll send you three meaningful actions you can each week.

Travel With The Nation

Be the first to hear about Nation Travels destinations, and explore the world with kindred spirits.

Sign up for our Wine Club today.

Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?

Tom Frank has been touring red states to talk about the new paperback edition of his book Listen, Liberal, or Whatever Happened to the Party of the People? He’s the author of several earlier books, including the classic What’s the Matter with Kansas? He’s been a columnist for The Wall Street Journal and Harper’s, and a contributor to The New York Times and The Nation. This interview has been edited and condensed.1

JW: You wrote Listen, Liberal before the 2016 election. In it, you argued that the Democrats had detached themselves from their historic constituency: ordinary, working-class Americans. Your recent tour took you through the red states—you went to Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis—2

TF: You want to know the biggest lesson I learned touring Trumpland? People hated Hillary Clinton. To a degree that even I, with my cynicism, did not understand. I did not hate Hillary Clinton. I voted for her, and I agreed with Obama that she was very qualified. She deserved to be president. I didn’t think she’d be a great president, but I thought she’d be OK—certainly better than Donald Trump. I knew how to hate Donald Trump. That’s easy. He boasts about groping women. He says these evil things about Mexicans, and mocks the handicapped. It’s unbelievable the stuff this guy did and said. Hating him was easy. What I did not understand was the degree to which people really hated Hillary Clinton. And that’s ultimately what this election was about: Which one do you hate more?3

JW:Why did so many people hate Hillary?4

TF: That’s the question. What is it about her? She doesn’t say rude things. She tries so hard to not offend people. I think it’s the very things that you and I like about Hillary that were the problem: She is so professional, she is so polished, and she’s such a wonderful lawyer. She went to Yale law school, and was so brilliant, and was the best in her class. People hate this. They hate what she represents, this kind of scolding liberalism that’s better than you. In Listen, Liberal, I talked about her goodness and her righteousness. I kind of made fun of her for it. But people hate that stuff. Hate it. And people running the Democratic campaign had no idea. The Republicans kept Trump at arm’s length all through the campaign. They knew that this guy was toxic. The Democrats did not do that with Hillary Clinton. They loved her without reservation. And not just them: the media, the press, the newspaper columnists—they could not imagine someone better than Hillary Clinton being a nominee for president.5

3

4

5

TF: It’s not a party of working-class people anymore. It’s not a party that cares much about the condition of the middle class. It’s a party that is attached to a different group, affluent, white-collar professionals who share a certain class perspective on the world. It’s a story of social class, but not the social class everyone thinks of when they think of the Democratic Party…. I voted for Hillary Clinton. But Hillary Clinton was the perfect embodiment of what’s wrong with the Democratic Party.7

JW: Of course the Democrats had a choice in the primaries. On the one hand, there was the most qualified person ever to run for office, who would make history by becoming the first woman president. On the other, there was a 74-year-old Jewish socialist from Vermont. 8

TF: And he’s the electable one!9

Ready to Fight Back? Sign Up For Take Action Now

JW: You called him “a living symbol of what the Democrats used to stand for.” So why didn’t Bernie win?10

TF: I’m not one of these people that thinks she won the nomination by cheating. Her side did cheat. There’s no doubt about that. The Democratic National Committee did cheat. But she also won fair and square. Why did Bernie lose the Democratic primaries? First of all, he was a totally unknown quantity when those primaries started. Today, he’s very well-known. People sort of wish he was president. But at the time, he was an unknown quantity. Most damaging of all, he wasn’t a Democrat. All those years in Congress, he never signed up with the Democratic Party. He voted with them most of the time, and he caucused with them, but he never joined the party. So party insiders, people who vote in Democratic primaries, Democratic elected officials—there’s no way they’re going to support a guy like that. And here’s Hillary, who has been promising these people things for decades now. She is their ideal candidate.11

JW: The Democrats adopted most of Bernie’s issues in their platform at their convention—did that have an impact on the white working-class Trump supporters?12

TF: No. Zero. They didn’t even know that. Another thing I learned in Trumpland: Bernie Sanders is a remarkably popular politician. Remarkably popular. This is a man that has very few scandals. I don’t think he has any. I think a lot of people regard him as a reassuring figure, as a comforting figure because he reminds them of Democrats of old. I spoke in a union hall in Indianapolis. This is the union local that represents those workers at the Carrier plant that Trump made such a big deal out of in the election. It was a lot of fun. These are people where the rank and file, by and large, went for Trump—because he was talking about not just their issues, but their lives. But all over this union hall are pictures of Bernie Sanders. They love this man. You see that, and suddenly, you figure something out: When people ask, “Would Bernie have been able to beat Donald Trump?” The answer is, “Hell, yes.” Because these are the voters that defected, that left the Democratic Party and voted for Trump. They love Sanders. Yeah, he would’ve beaten Trump. Hell yes!

Duh, Hillary also offended those who hated her because she was a woman ... some of them found Bernie "reassuring" because he was a man. Why not state the obvious? Don't get me wrong, I was a Bernie supporter and I am a feminist. I supported Bernie because I believe the 1% needs to be stopped and because Hillary is a "liberal hawk."

(2)(0)

Jeffrey Harrisonsays:

April 16, 2017 at 6:46 pm

Hillary Clinton was not the most qualified candidate ever. Yes, she is sharp but she is not competent. Two different adjectives that mean different things.

Take Libya. I loved We came, we saw, he died. A typically sloppy job of ripping off, in this case, Julius Caesar. The original Latin is Veni, Vidi, Vici. Not only is it more alliterative but it also means something else. I came I saw I conquered. And he meant just that. Caesar was the commanding general of the Roman legions that conquered Gaul back in the day when the commanding general was on the battlefield with his troops. Three Names freaked out when she merely thought she was within earshot of gunfire. And then we have the competency issue. By the time she was getting all excited about taking out Qaddafi, it should have been obvious to anyone with half a brain that if you take out the dictator in a dictatorship, the organs of government don't exist under a dictator and the country falls into chaos when the dictator is gone. See Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Now, 5 years on Libya is a basket case. Thousands are fleeing and frequently drowning in the Med to escape the chaos. Not only was that entirely predictable, it is also entirely and completely Three Name's fault. The most qualified? I don't think so. The most qualified in the second half of the 20th century would be Eisenhower and Kennedy.

Most of the Trump voters want government to give them a fair shake and protect them from forces much more powerful than they are. Neither the Democrats or the Republicans are going to do that.

(4)(1)

Joshua Freemansays:

April 16, 2017 at 3:05 pm

It's a good interview and good article, but it for some reason does not address the central issue of racism. Hillary Clinton had strong support from African-Americans and other minorities and I suspect this contributes to the "hatred" of her by Trump voters.

(6)(3)

Curtis Carpentersays:

April 16, 2017 at 5:53 pm

OK -- but Clinton brought a whole basket of negatives into the race, and each one of them (she was a she, she was a legacy, she was entitled, she was the neoliberal establishment, she was a hawk... a long list) gave a few people a reason to vote against her -- and the numbers added up. The thing that indicts the body politic though, in my mind, is that so many used anything in that basket to justify a vote for Donald Trump.

(3)(2)

Bill Edleysays:

April 16, 2017 at 6:40 am

I've spent 35 years as a Democratic Party activist in downstate Illinois. I've knocked on 10s of 1,000s of doors...campaigned in Iowa every presidential election since 1988...won a state representative seat...organized DNC delegate slates for various presidential candidates...organized volunteers and held fund-raisers for dozens of Democratic (including Bernie 2016)...there was NO WAY I was voting for a Clinton third term. It had NOTHING to do with Hillary Clinton professional stature. I voted against her in the General Election because the Democratic Party need to change. Here's an Op-Ed I wrote that appeared in the St. Louis Post....I am very happy that HRC lost.... http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/this-election-take-the-long-historical-view/article_d3e4bae3-9ad3-5706-857d-1ad9be22fcdf.html

(5)(8)

Herb Simmenssays:

April 16, 2017 at 10:19 am

Well then you must be happy that we are on the brink of war with N Korea and who knows what other countries based on Trump's love of the military to solve every problem. And if we're lucky enough to escape war with Russia and Iran and who knows who else, then there is no question that our very very slim chance to escape utter climate catastrophe in the next 25 years are now that much slimmer. So you and others like you were willing to literally stack the odds against human survival not just for Americans but for the billions of innocent people in poorer countries just so you could feel good. How sad that a sophisticated and experienced person such as yourself could make such a horrible choice, and that you're happy about it.

(15)(5)

Karin Eckvallsays:

April 15, 2017 at 7:59 pm

Anyone remember that Clinton had her daughter lie about Sanders health care plans at campaign events? Chelsea claimed he wanted to dismantle CHIP, Obamacare, Medicare and MedicAid. Hillary told the same lie.

I wonder if any of those people in the lead picture here have realized yet how totally suckered they've been by Donald Trump? Is even one of them, faced with Trump reality, rather than Trump promises, experiencing any buyer's remorse?

I'm guessing not. And that, it seems to me, is the real issue confronting American democracy.

(9)(0)

Holly G Mc Donaldsays:

April 15, 2017 at 1:49 pm

Besides her lack of connection to working class voters, Clinton's biggest problem in getting elected is that she has a vagina. Americans are simply too sexist to elect a woman, especially one that projects strength, intelligence and fortitude. Bernie, on the other hand, while a man and refreshingly progressive for a Democrat (albeit an opportunistic one) would never have gotten elected either because he is a Jewish intellectual. Quite basic to me that this and the last several elections have been about class, gender and racism.

(13)(14)

Linda Rabbensays:

April 15, 2017 at 8:53 am

Instead of hashing over what shoulda coulda woulda been done, we should be figuring out how to take over the Democratic Party so that next time we can vote for candidates we can believe in.

(8)(1)

Jeremy Fasslersays:

April 15, 2017 at 7:39 am

To everyone in this comment section who says "Bernie Would Have Won," I encourage you to watch this video of him as a young professor and tell me that with a straight face. Can you IMAGINE what the Republicans would have done to him when they found this? Imagine what Latinos would have done to him? Hell, this video alone would have cost him Florida. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7l5gw-q-7w

(3)(8)

Michael Robertsonsays:

April 15, 2017 at 11:27 pm

If voters are not fazed by Trump's 'pussy grabber' remarks or Trump university or his stiffing contractors they are not going to be fazed by this Sander's lecture.

(3)(0)

Victor Sciamarellisays:

April 15, 2017 at 5:24 am

One could also say that there never was a Primary election. Recall there were more than 700 Super delegates nearly all of whom lined up behind Clinton before the voting began. This infers the nominee was chosen by the DP elites in advance since starting out with a 700 point lead is practically insurmountable. And when you consider the DP cheating that was reveled by WikiLeaks, it’s seems they had no intention of letting the people chose their nominee in an honest election.

(8)(0)

Caleb Melamedsays:

April 15, 2017 at 4:09 am

There are two opinions stated here by Tom Frank which I strongly disagree with (and in fact decided to subscribe to The Nation in order to refute). The first is that "I did not hate Hillary Clinton. I voted for her, and I agreed with Obama that she was very qualified. She deserved to be president. I didn’t think she’d be a great president, but I thought she’d be OK—certainly better than Donald Trump." I did not hate Hillary Clinton either--I don't think hate should play a role in making a voting choice--but I certainly did NOT think she would be an OK president. I believe that she is a neoliberal hawk basically representing the interests of the connected and powerful, I am alarmed by her very hawkish foreign policy which I feared would lead to war (unfortunately, Trump now seems to have adopted these policies). As a Sanders supporter, I voted for her nevertheless, as did most Sanders backers, because of the appalling undertones of anti-Semitism and bigotry emanating from the Trump campaign.

Second, I emphatically disagree with Frank's claim that Hillary Clinton won the primary elections fair and square (after he paradoxically states that there was cheating on behalf of Clinton). In state after state after state where the results were very close, Hillary ended up winning. In the Iowa primaries, almost all of the coin tosses following ties came up for Clinton. This to me indicates a strong possibility of election tampering. Nationally, Clinton forces purged a total of hundreds of thousands of voters from the Democratic voter rolls--more than 100,000 in Brooklyn alone. The favoritism in the primaries on behalf of Clinton was on a massive scale. If the primaries had been fair, Sanders might well have won.

(19)(3)

Charles Rosengardsays:

April 14, 2017 at 9:42 pm

Not mentioned: the demonizing of HRC by many on the left, even, to an extent, by Bernie (Wall Street speeches, repeated again and again), certainly by some Nation writers. You can't cast aspersions against someone's integrity for 6 months and expect your voters to line up behind them. Example: ? In 2012, Jill Stein got just over 21,000 votes in Michigan. In 2016, she got almost 121,000 votes there. Trump won Michigan by 12,000 votes. Do the math. Pretty much the same in other close states. After 16+ years, I can't see that any good that came from voting Nader over Gore (Nader got 100,000 votes in Fla that year when Bush won by less than 600); after over 16+ weeks into Trump, I can't see that not voting for HRC instead of Jill or staying home did anyone any good. The left needs to grow up and understand that half a good loaf beats a serving of poison every day...and we need to stop beating up on people we might want to win.

(19)(16)

Michael Robertsonsays:

April 15, 2017 at 11:34 pm

Hillary's Wall Street entanglements are real issues, nothing like Benghazi or her emails, which were blown up out of all proportion by Republicans. It's not demonizing her to bring up her ties to big finance because that is exactly what people want to end. People wanted to hear her take a strong stand against the excesses of big business and she never did.

(11)(0)

Karin Eckvallsays:

April 14, 2017 at 10:07 pm

How sad for you that you've decided someone as tarnished and dishonest as Queen Hillary should have had everything handed to her as her entitlement, no matter that she is a warmonger and has put Wall St. ahead of Main St. for decades. And BTW, Hillary did FAR more demonizing of Bernie than the other way around. Please start standing up for principle instead of party and please drop the completely false trope that Nader cost Gore the election! (Couldn't win his home state; picked a conservative VP; refused to let master campaigner Bill help him; more Democrats in Florida voted for Bush than Nader; selected a milquetoast compromiser to represent him in the FLA standoff, etc., etc. )

(25)(11)

Charles Rosengardsays:

April 15, 2017 at 1:20 am

Certainly HRC's campaign made lots of mistakes as did Gore's in 2000. All I'm saying is that some progressives made a huge mistake in going 3rd party. This is a mistake the religious right did not make. Evan McMullins numbers in key states (he was supposed to be the 3rd party choice for moral/religious conservatives) are tiny. HRC would have clearly been a better choice than empowering Trump. Similarly, despite Cornel West, Ralph Nader, and Susan Sarandon saying that there was no significant difference between Gore and Bush in 2000, it's pretty hard to see Gore going into Iraq, appointing Alito and Roberts to the court, Gay bashing for eight years, etc. The Green vote in Florida and a number of close states gave us Bush. The Green vote this year was a similarly bad choice for anyone who cares about the real world consequences of voting.

(16)(9)

Katch Keatingsays:

April 16, 2017 at 6:31 am

The problem I see with the logic that voters who cast their ballot for "third" pary candidates cost Gore the election is that you are blaming people who took the time to turn out and vote while ignoring those who sat out the election.

Blame the 30% of the registered voters in Florida who didn't even bother to cast a ballot that election. Blame Gore who couldn't manage to get 600 voters from approximate 3 million votes left on the table. Blame Gore who conceded too early putting him on the back foot.

I am so tired the losing side blaming voters who voted for their candidate instead of the people who choose to sit out the election.

It's pretty sad when an impressive turnout is when 30% of the **registered** voters sit out the election, never mind the thousands who never bothered to register.

Florida disgustingly purged about 50,000 voters but there were still plenty of voters Gore could have collected.

Stop blaming people who voted. We don't owe our vote to anyone.

(5)(3)

Martha Shelleysays:

April 14, 2017 at 2:09 pm

I agree with Jon Wiener, but only in part. First, Clinton won almost 3 million more votes than Trump, so it was the electoral college that put that creep into the White House. Second, I campaigned for Obama but was sadly disappointed in him when he put Wall Street in charge of the economy, pushed a health insurance bill that was a big giveaway to the insurance companies, increased spying on Americans, and tried to pressure Congress into fast-tracking a trade bill that would have shipped even more jobs overseas. Clinton essentially promised more of the same. Any progressive planks on her platform were a reluctant concession to pressure from the Sanders campaign. When Trump was holding rallies with the public, she was meeting with big donors in the Hamptons. I had absolutely no enthusiasm for her, and neither did most of my friends. Once again we were forced to vote for the lesser evil.

(25)(4)

Karin Eckvallsays:

April 14, 2017 at 10:11 pm

"Forced"? No. Choice. The constant capitulation of Democratic voters to "the lesser of two evils" has simply allowed the party to move further right and more corporate...They know they can count on your vote. When do we say, enough! (What if the millions of Democrats who said Bernie could never win the nomination or the election has said, yes he can?)

(15)(2)

Tracy Martinsays:

April 14, 2017 at 6:17 pm

And that's exactly what I did. I voted for the lesser evil but got behind her nonetheless because I knew how terrible trump would be as president. Nothing he does shocks me, but everything he does infuriates me.

(8)(2)

Tom Zeugsays:

April 14, 2017 at 1:08 pm

I disagree with the conclusion that they hated Hillary because of her mannerisms, background or personality. They hated her because they have been brainwashed for years about the "Clinton Crime Syndicate" . I had many conversations about what a criminal she was, lock her up, but none could articulate an actually crime she could be charged with. They believed she had people murdered, etc. They were conned.

(28)(11)

Katch Keatingsays:

April 17, 2017 at 4:42 am

Yet another reason Clinton lost -- her and her supporters inability to move past their belief that:

"It is not possible to hate/dislike Clinton for her politics. Therefore all the people who hate/don't support Hillary are irrational. Their lack of support proves they are in the sway of the haters and alt-right. Their lack of support proves they are misogynist, a bigot, ________."

It's hard to sway people when you seem incapable of accepting their grievances might be rational or valid.

Clinton, her campaign and her supporters seemed the irrational ones to me. They were in the echo chamber and incapable of impartially observing the facts regarding where and how the election needed to be won.

Until the echo chamber is recognized the DNC will never become a country-wide majority party again.

(4)(0)

Steven Ricciuttisays:

April 15, 2017 at 10:56 am

To a one, every anti-Hillary person I know shares the same opinions you describe. Hillary lost because she had a shady past that the conservative media and Trump used to their advantage. According to their narrative, she is a massively corrupt part of the evils of career politicians. The Clinton family was the ideal target for Trump's campaign weaponry. Using the amazingly simple "us vs. them" rallying cry, Trump first fought and defeated the old guard GOP, then he took that same fight to Clinton. It's the same strategy Sanders used. The fact that Sanders was clearly not the typical Democratic politician is also why Sanders represented such a threat to both Trump and Clinton. It's near-tragic that the Clinton team never took the time to understand the appeal of Bernie (the same can be said of the GOP and Trump). Instead, they wallowed in their arrogance (as did the mainstream media) and laughed Trump off until it was too late.

(3)(0)

Michael Robertsonsays:

April 15, 2017 at 11:38 pm

You know voters have been brainwashed when a corrupt dirtbag like Trump can say 'crooked Hillary' over and over and not get laughed off the planet.

(7)(0)

Richard Phelpssays:

April 14, 2017 at 8:27 pm

"TPP is the Gold Standard" and her support of NAFTA, $225,000 from Goldman Sachs more than once, all of these things and more told working people they could not trust her. Her and Trump had over 50% negative trust ratings and Bernie had a positive trust rating. The DWS DNC knew that if Bernie became the nominee they would be out of their positions of power so they were more concerned about keeping their status than winning for American working prople.

(25)(2)

Roger Hoffmannsays:

April 14, 2017 at 4:02 pm

Is one brainwashed when they read about a candidate's political history and positions, and decide they are counter to the reader's values and interests?
Sure, there were plenty out there who believe that reptilian aliens are controlling Washington; but my impression from dozens of conversations with very thoughtful, sober and rational folk was that Hillary stood for much of what they believe is leading to the supplanting of democracy by oligarchy, and the steady rise of militarism accompanied by loss of global habitability. She was disliked because of her positions and leanings, and mistrusted because she was not honest about them.

(27)(2)

Tracy Martinsays:

April 14, 2017 at 6:18 pm

So they voted for the oligarchy instead?

(14)(0)

Karin Eckvallsays:

April 14, 2017 at 10:15 pm

Hillary even had Wall Streeters on her staff at State. The Goldman Sachs CEO Blankfein personally invested in her son-in-laws start up hedge fund. Hillary herself told us that she considered dictator, plunderer, torturer Hosni Mubarak is a family friend. Hillary is the oligarchy, or at least a total devotee and wannabe.

(15)(6)

Tracy Martinsays:

April 15, 2017 at 11:02 pm

Hillary is a neoliberal war hawk, but she was still boatloads better than trump, and that is saying something. But in case you haven't noticed, the very foundation of our democracy hangs in the balance. At least with Hillary, the social contract wouldn't be on the line.

(4)(4)

Anita Scalfsays:

April 14, 2017 at 12:39 pm

If he could have beat Trump, why couldn't he beat Hillary?

(10)(14)

Karin Eckvallsays:

April 14, 2017 at 10:17 pm

He started late, had little name recognition, and was completely trashed by the Clinton machine, including the DNC and many journalists such as The Nation's Joan Walsh.

(20)(3)

Richard Phelpssays:

April 16, 2017 at 8:05 pm

So true.

(2)(1)

Charlotte E Edwardssays:

April 14, 2017 at 11:43 pm

agreed!

(10)(1)

Jack Campbellsays:

April 14, 2017 at 10:17 pm

Did you not know that in many states Independents could not vote for him because of Democratic National Committee rules. You must be a registered Democrat to vote in some primaries. Result: independents were turned away from the poles so they were refused the right to vote for him.

(14)(1)

Robert Shaffersays:

April 16, 2017 at 12:29 pm

Correct. In Pennsylvania an independent can not vote in the primaries. You have to change your registration. It is a crock of BS.

(3)(0)

Roger Hoffmannsays:

April 14, 2017 at 3:57 pm

Surely you understand that a party nomination fight is not the same thing as a general election, where the electorate is comprised not only of one party's voters, but people of all stripes. Unaffiliated voters alone, for example, dwarf both D's and R's. And I don't buy the "he couldn't beat Hillary" claim, either. Had not the Party establishment rigged the contest with the help of an establishment MSM (and even liberal outlets like The Nation), the anti-democratic SuperDelegates whose "commitments" to Clinton were early on and frequently publicized so as to make Clinton's nomination appear inevitable, Sanders might well have been the candidate and we wouldn't be having this discussion about Trump today.

(16)(3)

John Dehoffsays:

April 14, 2017 at 12:32 pm

Tom Frank conveniently forgets two things. First, Sanders never encountered the incredibly efficient GOP smear machine. Also, Michael Bloomberg had pledged to run as an independent if Sanders won the nomination. This would have scrambled the race in ways impossible to predict.
What do Sanders and Trump have in common? They both promised things that they couldn't possibly have delivered. Clinton did much less of that. It's like a typical divorce situation, where mommy makes the kids go to school and do their homework and daddy is all about fun and games.

(15)(25)

Michael Robertsonsays:

April 15, 2017 at 11:45 pm

That GOP smear machine tried it's best to sabotage Trump early in the primaries and got nowhere. They were able to smear Clinton because it's been a cottage industry among rightwingers for 25 years. Fact is, the Republican party had no clue what to do about Trump and would have no clue how to handle Sanders.

(6)(0)

Elizabeth Gioumousissays:

April 15, 2017 at 8:30 am

Sanders' proposals were completely realistic and much less radical than the New Deal. It's our thinking that has shrunk and twisted along with the Democratic Party to the point that perfectly ordinary stuff that so many people in other wealthy countries take for granted, like universal health care and free college, sound unrealistic.

Here in CA we had essentially free college for ages - and then we cut business property taxes down to almost nothing, and goodbye to our wonderful education system.

I'm not sure about Bloomberg. That's actually possibly a valid point, unlike all the others that people make about Sanders. It's possible that the Hillary camp would have deserted the Dems and voted Bloomberg, anything to keep an old-fashioned New Deal style politician out, and it's possible that all the moderate Republicans would have fled Trump and joined Bloomberg. It's very hard to predict three way races. But all the other arguments that Clinton supporters make about how Sanders would have lost worse than Hillary are just silly.

(10)(0)

Karin Eckvallsays:

April 14, 2017 at 10:16 pm

No, he encountered the very efficient Hillary smear machine. Please, wake up and get the facts!

(15)(3)

Roger Hoffmannsays:

April 14, 2017 at 4:08 pm

That "GOP smear machine" speculation about Sanders doesn't hold water in my view. He had already been smeared by the DNC / establishment elites. When several lifelong R's told me that they hated Clinton and Trump and would vote for Sanders if given the opportunity, I knew they were telling the truth. It was consistent with what polls had said for very many months. In the end they voted for Trump - given the choices he was at least the "R". Younger folk, unaffiliateds and recently-registered D's voted third party or left the line blank.
Your comparison of Sanders to Trump is ridiculous.